We now have 30 days left until the fiscal cliff is reached and the country faces severe repercussions for Washington's failure to come to a budget compromise. While the President should feel emboldened by being re-elected, I am shocked at the offer he recently gave Republicans. It wasn't just that he wanted more taxes than he had pushed for while campaigning, that is to be expected. It wasn't just that he wanted an immediate approval of 80 billion dollars in stimulus spending for the "infrastructure" the guy's a spender, this request would be expected. It wasn't even his request to put off sequestration for a year, that was troubling, but it would be easy to take that off the table if both sides could simply come to an agreement.
No, what was really troubling was his request to have sole authority to raise the debt ceiling without congress' approval.... forever. Basically, the man talked of a need for a "balanced" approach to solving the fiscal cliff after the election, but he wants to be able to spend perpetually with no more oversight? That kinda takes away all balance and puts all the control into one mans hands. The offer was shocking and frankly, could not be taken seriously.
And so now, here again we find ourselves, less than 30 days out, and rather than stay in Washington and meet with Republicans to talk over the deal, the President went to a rally in Pennsylvania where he implored republicans to accept the deal and not hold the American people "hostage." This is a term he often uses, and remember this is what he did, he went to hold a rally, and demonize the other side... 30 days out.
That got me thinking about how President Bush handled his parties defeat in the 2006 mid-term elections which saw democrats take control of both houses of Congress. President Bush signaled a willingness to work with both sides, and had a considerable amount of praise for then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi during the 2007 State of the Union. When it came to the budget he and the GOP worked with the dems, giving them most of what the wanted and still passing a budget.
That brings us back to today. What would W. do about the fiscal cliff? In the past President Bush accepted his parties defeat in 2006 and he worked across the aisle. He didn't run off to hold rally and he didn't hold rallies against democrats. He was elected to help run the country, and he did. So it is then reasonable to assume he would do the same now. At least that's my observation.
What will President zero do? My guess is more of the same, but unless he takes both the debt raising clause and putting off sequestration, off the table, no deal will be reached and the unfortunate victims of this political miscarriage will be the American People.
-Zach
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Sunday, December 2, 2012
Sunday, November 4, 2012
This Tuesday, a Clear Choice in a Close Election
It shouldn't come as much of a surprise that I'm backing Mitt Romney for President. It should come as a surprise how close the election actually is. President Obama has only been in office for four years and has somehow managed to double our debt in that time, while at the same time presiding over an economy that saw 43 consecutive months of 8% unemployment or higher. The amount the government spends on welfare and food stamps have both doubled, and when Obama speaks of the next four years he generally says, do more of the same and just tax the wealthy "a little more."
That always gets me, the "a little more" comment. I also heard it recently when California Governor Gerry Brown made the same statement. California is facing a huge budget deficit and Brown, like so many others, says this can be solved by asking "a little more" of the wealthy. Gosh it's just "a little more" and of course the implication is the wealthy are being selfish, or aren't paying at all if they oppose it. Forget the fact that in California, that "little more" will now have some wealthy Californians taxed at over 50% now, it's half of what they earned, but gosh, just pay "a little more" to help the state out.
Back to my point on Obama though. The other thing that gets me about that so called "plan" is how, exactly does it spur economic growth and create new jobs? Are they going to create more government jobs and just use the new tax rate to pay for new employees? Or, are they just going to encourage more people to get on the government dole like welfare and food stamps and wait it out until eventually it "gets better" and claim victory?
My guess is the latter, and if that's the case, it's not a plan. Mitt Romney has a plan, has gone over it repeatedly and frankly, I'm shocked so many would still back the current President. He literally couldn't have been more of failure if he tried, but still, this race is razor thin.
That said, I'll give my "hope" for how the election goes. Currently Rasmussen has the electoral college as 237 safe for Obama, 206 safe Romney. Going over the swing states, I see the following.
Nevada: 6 electoral votes. My home state, I love it there but almost all polls give the edge to Obama. I don't see this changing so it will go to Obama, but hopefully Dean Heller pulls out the Senate Victory over Shelly Birkley. Obama 243, Romney 206
Florida: 29 electoral votes: All polls give the edge to Romney, so I say it goes to Romney. Obama 243, Romney 235
Virginia: 13 electoral votes. Very close. Obama really wants this one. The President has Senator Mark Warner giving a close out ad for the President in which he says he picks the President as a "business investor." Problem with that logic is when one considers all the other "business leaders" who have endorsed Romney, including the CEO of Chrystler. It's close, but I think Romney gets it. Obama 243, Romney 248
New Hampshire: 4 electoral votes. Very Surprising how close this NE state is, and most polling has it for Romney. Obama 243, Romney 252.
Colorado: 9 electoral votes. Polling and the huge crowds makes me a believer this one will go to Romney. Obama 243, Romney 261.
Ohio: 18 electoral votes. All polls are indecisive. This is too close to call, but I'm cynical enough that I'll call it for Obama. Obama 261, Romney 261.
Iowa: 6 electoral votes. Very blue, but I think this one is trending towards Romney. Obama 261, Romney 267.
Wisconsin. All tied up, but currently trending towards Romney. Obama 261, Romney 277.
With that, Romney wins a narrow victory that is likely to be subject to court challenges, but eventually wins.
Note: I used Rasmussen's toss ups for my review here. Recent polling have all placed Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Minnesota within the margin or error, or within the "toss up" category. I'd love for Romney to pick up any one of these states, but I don't see it happening.
Anybody else?
-Zach
That always gets me, the "a little more" comment. I also heard it recently when California Governor Gerry Brown made the same statement. California is facing a huge budget deficit and Brown, like so many others, says this can be solved by asking "a little more" of the wealthy. Gosh it's just "a little more" and of course the implication is the wealthy are being selfish, or aren't paying at all if they oppose it. Forget the fact that in California, that "little more" will now have some wealthy Californians taxed at over 50% now, it's half of what they earned, but gosh, just pay "a little more" to help the state out.
Back to my point on Obama though. The other thing that gets me about that so called "plan" is how, exactly does it spur economic growth and create new jobs? Are they going to create more government jobs and just use the new tax rate to pay for new employees? Or, are they just going to encourage more people to get on the government dole like welfare and food stamps and wait it out until eventually it "gets better" and claim victory?
My guess is the latter, and if that's the case, it's not a plan. Mitt Romney has a plan, has gone over it repeatedly and frankly, I'm shocked so many would still back the current President. He literally couldn't have been more of failure if he tried, but still, this race is razor thin.
That said, I'll give my "hope" for how the election goes. Currently Rasmussen has the electoral college as 237 safe for Obama, 206 safe Romney. Going over the swing states, I see the following.
Nevada: 6 electoral votes. My home state, I love it there but almost all polls give the edge to Obama. I don't see this changing so it will go to Obama, but hopefully Dean Heller pulls out the Senate Victory over Shelly Birkley. Obama 243, Romney 206
Florida: 29 electoral votes: All polls give the edge to Romney, so I say it goes to Romney. Obama 243, Romney 235
Virginia: 13 electoral votes. Very close. Obama really wants this one. The President has Senator Mark Warner giving a close out ad for the President in which he says he picks the President as a "business investor." Problem with that logic is when one considers all the other "business leaders" who have endorsed Romney, including the CEO of Chrystler. It's close, but I think Romney gets it. Obama 243, Romney 248
New Hampshire: 4 electoral votes. Very Surprising how close this NE state is, and most polling has it for Romney. Obama 243, Romney 252.
Colorado: 9 electoral votes. Polling and the huge crowds makes me a believer this one will go to Romney. Obama 243, Romney 261.
Ohio: 18 electoral votes. All polls are indecisive. This is too close to call, but I'm cynical enough that I'll call it for Obama. Obama 261, Romney 261.
Iowa: 6 electoral votes. Very blue, but I think this one is trending towards Romney. Obama 261, Romney 267.
Wisconsin. All tied up, but currently trending towards Romney. Obama 261, Romney 277.
With that, Romney wins a narrow victory that is likely to be subject to court challenges, but eventually wins.
Note: I used Rasmussen's toss ups for my review here. Recent polling have all placed Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Minnesota within the margin or error, or within the "toss up" category. I'd love for Romney to pick up any one of these states, but I don't see it happening.
Anybody else?
-Zach
Monday, October 22, 2012
Foreign Policy Debate - Does It Matter?
It did in the 2004 election when Iraq was the main concern for the country and
hung heavy around the neck of President Bush. Entering his second term many
figured it would remain the top issue as the global war on terrorism dragged on
eventually leading to President Bush's decision to send in surge troops to
Iraq.
Of course the economy then collapsed and this dominated the 2008 election. Either way I believe Obama would have won the election, the circumstances around it just changed in the final months.
Today the economy remains easily the biggest issue for most voters which leads me to ask how much tonites debate will have on the overall election.
It matters in the sense that Obama is sure to try and paint Romney as a return to the Bush foreign policy which would lead to war, most likely one against Iran or possibly one against Syria. If Obama is successful in this matter it could drive away key votes in swing states. People will remain concerned about the economy, but there is no desire for another war.
For my own consideration, Obama has improved in his foreign policy handling IMHO. Drone strikes are up and we are working with allies to combat terrorism as in the current cases of Yemen, Somalia, and Libya. I don't desire to see a change in this issue, but for me the issue returns again to the economy and so I'm going with Romney no matter what.
Romney will need to defend against this, he'll likley make statements such as the need to work with allies to applie pressures on states such as Iran. This will be easily defended as Obama points out this as what his administration's policy.
Romney will then move on to generalities about the need to project a strong American, and will stay away from specifics on how he would do this. Instead he will just point out Obama's weaknesses of projecting a diminished America.
All and all I expect tonites debate to end in a wash and have no real dent on the election. It will come and go and afterwards both sides will claim victory. After this Romney will move on with ads and campaigns highlighting his economic plan. Obama will do the same, but will go negative against Romney as well.
And it all ends on November 6th.
That's my take.
How bout y'all?
-Zach
Of course the economy then collapsed and this dominated the 2008 election. Either way I believe Obama would have won the election, the circumstances around it just changed in the final months.
Today the economy remains easily the biggest issue for most voters which leads me to ask how much tonites debate will have on the overall election.
It matters in the sense that Obama is sure to try and paint Romney as a return to the Bush foreign policy which would lead to war, most likely one against Iran or possibly one against Syria. If Obama is successful in this matter it could drive away key votes in swing states. People will remain concerned about the economy, but there is no desire for another war.
For my own consideration, Obama has improved in his foreign policy handling IMHO. Drone strikes are up and we are working with allies to combat terrorism as in the current cases of Yemen, Somalia, and Libya. I don't desire to see a change in this issue, but for me the issue returns again to the economy and so I'm going with Romney no matter what.
Romney will need to defend against this, he'll likley make statements such as the need to work with allies to applie pressures on states such as Iran. This will be easily defended as Obama points out this as what his administration's policy.
Romney will then move on to generalities about the need to project a strong American, and will stay away from specifics on how he would do this. Instead he will just point out Obama's weaknesses of projecting a diminished America.
All and all I expect tonites debate to end in a wash and have no real dent on the election. It will come and go and afterwards both sides will claim victory. After this Romney will move on with ads and campaigns highlighting his economic plan. Obama will do the same, but will go negative against Romney as well.
And it all ends on November 6th.
That's my take.
How bout y'all?
-Zach
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Obama and the Left's latest Attacks on Business
I remember hearing a story about a dozen years ago regarding Chevy Chase and Beverly D'Angelo. The story took place during the filming for "Vegas Vacation." Anyway, whenever they weren't filming the actors were spending some time playing the slot machines at the hotels they were staying at. D'Angelo spent a good part of one day feeding a machine that never really paid out for her. The next day Chase was at the same machine and suddenly the machine was paying out jackpot after jackpot. D'Angelo was angry with Chase's success at the same machine she had been feeding so much and demanded Chevy pay her some of his winnings, claiming it was her feeding the machine the day prior which lead to his current success. Chevy reportedly denied D'Angelo this, rationalizing that if he was to pay her, than logically he would also owe money to anyone else who ever played that particular machine.
The reason I bring up this old story is because of what our President did in Roanoke, Virginia last Friday. In what has to be the most incredible display of socialistic rhetoric I've ever seen from the man, he claimed that people who are successful in building a business, are not responsible for their own success. "If you've got a business, you didn't build that" was one of the lines from Obama's nearly minute long rant linked below. During this rant the President made references to people benefiting from having good teachers, or benefiting from people building roads, or just benefiting from living in a system which somehow... gave I guess, their success to them. Obama's line is troubling for a number of reasons, one of which is that it reveals the Presidents opinion on business owners, which is that no matter how successful, all profits or proceeds should be confiscated and redistributed to everyone else. It's all part of a theory called "social justice" which is espoused by many individuals with ties to the Trinity Church, or as we know it best, the church in which Jeremiah Wright was a preacher and in which President Obama was a member for over twenty years.
What's really troubling here is that we have a President who's economic record has been horrible for his entire term in office and facing re-election he attacks business owners, who if successful, are the very people needed to help rebuild the country. Is it any wonder why this President's policies have failed? He, his administration, and his know nothing Democrat allies in Congress have always been on the side of bigger government involvement and an increase in spending. During Obama's term in office we will have seen the government take over of nearly 20% of the economy and spendning that has equated to nearly 8 billion dollars... a day. And as I write this unemployment is over 8% and has been there for over three years. The economy has not resonded and the President's latest comments should be a clear indicator that four more years of this man will ensure the economic malaise stays exactly where it is.
On a seperate, but similar note, I read a article in USA Today sometime last week which I unfortunately can not track down right now. The article stated that the American Dream of working hard to earn a better life had not been realized by the vast majority of Americans. The main point of the article was that people stayed within their station in life, the rich stayed rich, the middle class stayed in the middle, and the poor stayed poor. The article stated with so few rising to the top, it appeared to debunk the claim of an America were people could succeed.
In reading the article I am again reminded of my favorite Mark Twain quote: "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." Yes, the poor stayed poor and the rich stayed rich, but this does not prove the system isn't there or it doesn't work. People have a level of education available to them which would have made their great grandparents red with jealously 100 years ago. They have the means to obtain loans for schools, businesses, and seek higher office themselves should they so choose. They have all these options, but in order to be successful they will need to put in a lot of long hours, dedication, and determination. For many Americans it's far easier to seek a job paying them wages which affords them the lifestyle they are used to living. So their status in life has nothing to do with the "American Dream" not being there, it comes down to personnel choices, as it always had. Success isn't a given, you have to want it bad enough to risk failing first.
Alright, that does it for my first post in awhile. A lot of stuff has been going on in the political world and since I do have a few days off I will take some time to make a few more posts in the coming days. If you have time, please review the video below. I think if you were on the fence before on who you may vote for in November, that this video should convince you Mitt Romney is the right choice for America, if for no other reason than the fact that Mitt understands the concept of encouraging business growth within America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKjPI6no5ng
-Zach
The reason I bring up this old story is because of what our President did in Roanoke, Virginia last Friday. In what has to be the most incredible display of socialistic rhetoric I've ever seen from the man, he claimed that people who are successful in building a business, are not responsible for their own success. "If you've got a business, you didn't build that" was one of the lines from Obama's nearly minute long rant linked below. During this rant the President made references to people benefiting from having good teachers, or benefiting from people building roads, or just benefiting from living in a system which somehow... gave I guess, their success to them. Obama's line is troubling for a number of reasons, one of which is that it reveals the Presidents opinion on business owners, which is that no matter how successful, all profits or proceeds should be confiscated and redistributed to everyone else. It's all part of a theory called "social justice" which is espoused by many individuals with ties to the Trinity Church, or as we know it best, the church in which Jeremiah Wright was a preacher and in which President Obama was a member for over twenty years.
What's really troubling here is that we have a President who's economic record has been horrible for his entire term in office and facing re-election he attacks business owners, who if successful, are the very people needed to help rebuild the country. Is it any wonder why this President's policies have failed? He, his administration, and his know nothing Democrat allies in Congress have always been on the side of bigger government involvement and an increase in spending. During Obama's term in office we will have seen the government take over of nearly 20% of the economy and spendning that has equated to nearly 8 billion dollars... a day. And as I write this unemployment is over 8% and has been there for over three years. The economy has not resonded and the President's latest comments should be a clear indicator that four more years of this man will ensure the economic malaise stays exactly where it is.
On a seperate, but similar note, I read a article in USA Today sometime last week which I unfortunately can not track down right now. The article stated that the American Dream of working hard to earn a better life had not been realized by the vast majority of Americans. The main point of the article was that people stayed within their station in life, the rich stayed rich, the middle class stayed in the middle, and the poor stayed poor. The article stated with so few rising to the top, it appeared to debunk the claim of an America were people could succeed.
In reading the article I am again reminded of my favorite Mark Twain quote: "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." Yes, the poor stayed poor and the rich stayed rich, but this does not prove the system isn't there or it doesn't work. People have a level of education available to them which would have made their great grandparents red with jealously 100 years ago. They have the means to obtain loans for schools, businesses, and seek higher office themselves should they so choose. They have all these options, but in order to be successful they will need to put in a lot of long hours, dedication, and determination. For many Americans it's far easier to seek a job paying them wages which affords them the lifestyle they are used to living. So their status in life has nothing to do with the "American Dream" not being there, it comes down to personnel choices, as it always had. Success isn't a given, you have to want it bad enough to risk failing first.
Alright, that does it for my first post in awhile. A lot of stuff has been going on in the political world and since I do have a few days off I will take some time to make a few more posts in the coming days. If you have time, please review the video below. I think if you were on the fence before on who you may vote for in November, that this video should convince you Mitt Romney is the right choice for America, if for no other reason than the fact that Mitt understands the concept of encouraging business growth within America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKjPI6no5ng
-Zach
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)